Great question, I've been debating this one for awhile. On one hand, I think Obama will be the better president, but of course, I don't agree with his morals. I also am unsure on the role our president really has in this issue. Bush was pro-life, but what did he do to reverse Roe v. Wade? What has any president done regarding this issue? I don't think any president will touch this issue with a ten-foot pole. So, to that end, I think I could vote for Obama, but probably won't based on his tax plans and health care plans.

It is a deal breaker for me. The abortion issue may not qualify somebody in my mind, but it certainly does disqualify a candidate.

Can and WILL vote for Obama.

The government has no right to dictate my medical care based upon religious beliefs, no matter what. And, for the record, I find it interesting to note that McCain's compassion for a newborn does not extend to guaranteeing it health insurance.

@Katy This isn't necessarily a religious arguement, it's more based on when life begins. Christians aren't the only who believe it begins at conception :)

I am sad to say that much of what that Princeton professor refers to is a terrible distortion of Obama's actual views and record. Particularly distorted are his claims about Obama voting to deprive infants of medical care. In this specific case, Obama simply voted against a terrible bill that would have simply restated that doctors must provide care to infants, as they are already required to do. Obama is absolutely, 100% against infanticide and I'm very offended by the smears against him on this issue. (more info is available here: http://fightthesmears.com/articles/15/wildaccus...)

Obama also opposed legislation which would ban partial birth abortions because there were no provisions whatsoever for the health of the mother. I'm sorry, but I am not willing to say that a woman must accept a death sentence simply because her abortion is classified as "partial birth."

As far as the infamous quote about Obama not wanting his daughters to be "punished with a baby" I think that his point was terribly misinterpreted. I think it should be clear that he was responding to those who frame teen pregnancy as if it were a punishment for those who are irresponsible. Clearly, a man who chose to father two young daughters doesn't see children as a punishment.

The fact is when you compare the two candidates, bar none, Barack Obama will do more to reduce abortions than John McCain. He does believe that abortion is wrong, but it is obvious that there is no one, simple solution to stopping it from happening. Therefore, Barack Obama supports better, comprehensive sex-ed programs in the schools, expanded access to education for the poor, better health care for children and families, and general prevention of abortion.

John McCain does not support the programs that will prevent abortion and simply does not have any authority to make it illegal. If he attempts to pack the courts in order to overturn Roe v. Wade, he would set a dangerous standard for the type of litmus test that Americans have always rejected in similar situations.

The real question here is "Do you want a president who will reduce the number of abortions, or do you want someone who claims to be against abortion, but will do nothing to stop it?"

So, of course, I'll be voting for Obama.

It's funny, because some people actually believe that reducing the number of abortions is the same as being pro-life.

Wrong. The pro-life stance is specifically for the illegalization of abortion. We cannot justify keeping abortion legal just so we can reduce the numbers and keep them safe; using that logic, we could make drugs legal and control the selling of drugs and minimalize substance abuse. We do not make laws based on minimalizing the effects of bad things; we make laws based on what is right or wrong.

In conclusion, abortion is not a moral issue: it is a rights issue.

Chadley

Chadley, that's not entirely true. Sometimes we do "make laws based on minimalizing the effects of bad things." In fact there are a number of countries which have reduced the overall use of drugs by allowing it to be legal and shaping the laws to prevent their use. If we minimized the negative effects of drug use on individual users and on society, is this not a legitimate strategy when we find that criminalization isn't working?

Mind you, I say this as someone who has never used illegal drugs, including marijuana, in my life and abhors them.

Now, how is it not pro-life to say "looking at the facts, we should drastically reduce the number of abortions in a pragmatic way that will actually make a difference?" I don't think someone who ignores pragmatic solutions to reduce abortions is pro-life.

In regards to whether abortion is a moral issue or a rights issue, it is most certainly both. It is also extremely complex in both areas. It is not enough to say that the embryo/fetus/child/potential has the right to life and ignore the fact that a mother who cannot legally seek an abortion, right or wrong, is being required by her government to take on certain burdens in giving birth to a child within her body.

What I appreciate so much about Obama is that he is not interested in oversimplifying these issues.

I should add, I don't necessarily think that it is unreasonable for a mother to accept the burden of giving birth to a child, but I do think that any person who believes that the embryo/fetus/child/potential has the right to life should also realize that there is a trade-off between this right and the rights of the mother. Maybe not an unreasonable one, but it's still a trade-off nonetheless and the arguments should be made with this in mind. Disregarding these rights will not win any points for those who call for the criminalization of abortion.

its a much bigger issue than this - pro-life is so much bigger than doing away with abortion... pro-life means a basic respect for humanity at ALL stages of life, including children without health care, people losing their houses and jobs, women making less than their male counterparts for the same work, hearing loss that could be prevented with simple antibiotics and basic health care for all - not to mention the intentional taking of life in the name of justice that we call the death penalty - which costs way more than simple life imprisonment... all of that to say either an always yes or an always no answer is overly-simplistic and lacks nuance of any kind.

fwiw, abortion is a medical procedure - there are times when it is, regretfully, necessary... times when the choice really is between losing one life or losing two... and there are times when children are victimized that to continue a pregnancy would cause further victimization... its really not a simple issue - that's what i liked about Obama's answer to the question on the debate - he demonstrated an understanding of the complexities involved...

i am pro-life - i am NOT anti-abortion... the two are not synonymous

Well I did vote for Obama and I feel very good about it. I really don't understand one issue voters but I know and love some so I'll shush.
Donald Miller, author and spokesperson for "Believers for Barack" recently spoke about this issue. It's a simple statement but one I agree with.

"I am a pro-life voter, but do not believe John McCain’s plan on the issue will work. McCain’s only stand on the issue has been a recent switch to a pro-life position, and a promise to continue the attempt to criminalize abortion through the Supreme Court.I believe this is an empty promise, and anybody who understands our judicial system would know this. Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court (our most conservative Judge, many feel, and the pro-lifers greatest hope for the plan to criminalize abortion) has stated that Roe V. Wade “is the law of the land” and has been backed up in precedent by the Casey case. He does not believe it is plausible to overturn both rulings. Of course it is possible, but it would take a judicial miracle and the appointment of even more conservative, activist judges. This is the only way the overturning of Roe V. Wade will happen. The continuation of rhetoric about being pro-life but not having a realistic plan has tired me of the Republican Party. As more and more evangelicals walk away, I hope Republicans will stop giving lip-service to this important issue. My hope is they will realize they are going to lose more and more votes until they are willing to engage in a bipartisan effort to make progress with comprehensive legislation that is realistic and actual.

The Democrats have proposed comprehensive legislation called the 95/10 initiative that aims to reduce the number of abortions that take place in this country by 95% within 10 years. While Barack Obama is a pro-choice candidate, he supports this and similar legislation. This is the only proposed and realistic strategy that can move us around the cultural impasse that is breathing hate and anger into the Christian community.

While Barack Obama opposes late-term abortions, he has made promises to the National Organization or Women to make progress in a woman’s right to chose. I wish Obama were more strong on this issue. Still, I do feel he will accomplish more than John McCain, as John McCain has only recently taken this position and offers no legislation and no plan.

This is a very debatable issue. There are facts on both sides that seem to refute any argument made. But I have had to do the research and take a position and, for now, this is my position."